This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Paid editing recruitment allegation and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, obviously I'm not expecting you to respond in the matter, just making you aware as required. -- Amanda (she/her) 23:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This arbitration case request has been closed as declined by the committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As the allegation was made here, and the case was only indirectly about the substance of the allegation against Bradv, I'd like to say clearly that the evidence which came before ArbCom showed an obvious joe job, and that there was no hint that the real Bradv had any involvement with the UPE scam. Cabayi ( talk) 16:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I have spent the last several hours reading through the conversation on my talk page and elsewhere over the past few days. While much of what needed to be said has been said already, I thought I would write down a few thoughts of my own, and perhaps reiterate the wise words of others.

First of all, thank you to all those who came to my defence. Not only is it heart-warming to see this level of support from the community, you have all made excellent points that ultimately raise awareness of issues involved paid editing, off-wiki communication, and administrator competence.

Obviously, the allegations made by Jimbo Wales are entirely untrue and without merit. I don't really feel the need to respond to them, but I would be remiss in posting a message here without including this point.

Sadly, the practice of conning potential article subjects for outrageous sums of money is all too common. Jimbo makes the point that we need to do a better job of communicating the risks involved in hiring paid editors, and on this point I wholeheartedly agree. In my time as an arbitrator I encountered several instances of people paying for articles and then emailing ArbCom when they ultimately got ripped off. The point I always want to make to these people, and the one we should be shouting from the rooftops, is that you do not need to pay to have an article written about you. If you or the things you've done really are worthy of an article, we will write it for free.

Not only do we need to communicate these risks to our readers, it seems we also need to do a better job of communicating that to our editors. Any one who wants to be active in the area of combatting undisclosed paid editing needs to watch out for scams, including blackmail, extortion, and obvious joe jobs. This includes the most basic steps of checking someone's contributions before accusing them of impropriety. And if the evidence is unclear, getting a second opinion from someone else experienced in this area of editing before publicizing allegations, especially those involving off-wiki conduct, is imperative.

While I have not received an apology from Jimbo for anything beyond the "tone" of his inquiry, I do not require one. I don't believe the initial query was made out of malice. Rather, Jimbo has been disconnected from the community for quite some time, and does not have a full appreciation of the depth of knowledge and experience that the editing community has in dealing with issues like these. I am pleased that Jimbo has recognized this and resigned many of his advanced user rights, instead entrusting them solely to those trusted by the community.

Lastly, as a former arb I can't help but point out that the laying down of these tools was done under a cloud, and should not be restored without community consensus. (Seriously, I tried to not include this point, but it really needs to be said.) – bradv 04:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Nice response. Valereee ( talk) 12:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear from you Bradv, albeit in a set of circumstances that really ought not to have arisen. Hope you're keeping well. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• Brad, it is really great to hear from you. I'm glad you are doing well, and I'm sorry this pathetic character assassination occurred in your absence, but I suspect that was the goal of the scammers, to use the name of someone who was not around to deny it. As a former arb, you know how fraught these situations can be. I know you to be a person who has a strong sense of ethics, so the very idea that you might have traded in your seat on Arbcom for a UPE ring was shockingly unlikely, but.... stranger things have happened. I certainly did not want this to be true, and luckily, once we saw the supposed evidence linking you to said ring, it was obviously, laughably, incompetently, fake.

That it fooled a clueless rich person who wanted nothing but to buy their own article on here and was acting under the apparent assumption that all admins and even arbs are basically for sale for the right price is not surprising. That said person turned to the person they assumed, as the founder, was the boss of all these corrupt people they believed they had been paying off is also not surprising. That said founder just swallowed this obvious bullshit and started repeating it on-wiki, that was very surprising.

I of course agree with you that the resignation of advanced permissions was very much under a cloud. I don't see how anyone could see it any other way. There is certainly more we could be doing to educate the public about UPE scams, but this was done in the absolute worst possible way, and it took quite a bit of pressure to get the supposed evidence to even be submitted in the proper way. This whole episode was emberassing for the entire project, but that doesn't seem to have sunk in for the person who caused it.

Anyway, keep doing great out there Brad. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Beeblebrox, well said. Also, something occurred to me today: if someone was really duped out of $15k for a Wikipedia article, that says two important things about the state of this project: First, having an article on Wikipedia is very desirable. Second, getting an article about a non-notable subject past the so-called "moderators" is incredibly difficult. These are both good things. – bradv 00:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, I just wanted to say it's nice to see you around again. I'm sorry you had to go through this. SQL ^{Query Me!} 23:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I clearly included the detail that the "someone (who) evidently thought it a worthy redirect" was a multi-banned series of sock puppets, who interfered in the {{ Db-author's}} own, immediate, choice. A bogus user has more authority than both the author and a real user? Jmg38 ( talk) 02:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Jmg38, I'm referring to the revert by HexaChord, as well as any editor who may have looked at the redirect in the intervening 14 years. It can handle sitting at rfd for a few days. – bradv 02:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what the edit summary they used was supposed to mean though. But they took the blanked article and replaced it with a redirect, which undoes the eligibility for G7 the same as if it had been deleted and recreated as a redirect. – bradv 02:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. Jmg38 ( talk) 02:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This HexaChord? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#User:HexaChord and his/her_sockpuppets? Jmg38 ( talk) 02:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh fun. It's socks all the way down. – bradv 02:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't normally delete ordure from my talk page, but I thank you for doing it. I imagine you have done mass revert of whatever bile that was, spread across multiple talk pages. It was unreadable anyway, being a rant. Yes, I looked! 😇😈 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Timtrent: No worries, it was just a regular LTA with a few grievances they thought you might be interested in. WP:RBI / WP:DFTT, as per usual. – bradv 22:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

We laugh in the face of LTAs and await the next one, as usual 🇺🇦  Fiddle^Timtrent  Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bradv, maybe I am wrong, but to me this looks like a collaborative message [1] and I'd be inclined to restore it and thank the unregistered user who left it. I believe that the message is intended to foster evidence-gathering and discussions at ArbCom. But maybe I'm missing something and I'd like to ask your opinion before restoring it. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Gitz6666, the person behind that message is banned from Wikipedia and should not be editing. They weren't just messaging you – they used dozens of proxies to spam dozens of talk pages. – bradv 23:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that. Thank you for letting me know. Gitz ( talk) ( contribs) 23:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries. It never hurts to AGF, but in this case DFTT is the better tactic. Cheers. – bradv 23:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the application of sock-b-gone. I appreciated it. Jehochman ^Talk 00:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• If this revision on Floq's talkpage is also a matter of a banned users sock, then understood. If otherwise, perhaps a comment on my talkpage? I don't edit often anymore, but Floq is one of the few I keep on my watchlist. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 15:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, that's the one. – bradv 16:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Bradv. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ You've got mail}} or {{ ygm}} template.

Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 17:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have read your email. I do not feel the need to discuss this privately at this time, as the only things I know about these allegations are from what was posted on my talk page. – bradv 22:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Smallbones, if you are going to quote parts of my statement above in your article, please try to balance it and not just pick the two sentences that were the most charitable to Jimbo. If you can't figure out a way to do that, just quote the whole thing. cc: JPxG – bradv 00:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Christ, the current Signpost staff are a fucking disgrace to this project. Just resign already, @ Smallbones, JPxG, and Bri: SN54129 00:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I had to scroll down two whole screens before finding something that suggests the allegations might be untrue. @ Smallbones, how about quoting ArbCom's statement above? They've seen the "evidence" – I haven't. – bradv 00:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason I prefer email is that I don't have to go thru writing and editing the article on-Wiki while two or three people watch over my shoulder. Have you ever tried doing that and answering their questions at the same time? I had already quoted the arbcom decision up top. I did not just quote 2 sentences from your statement about. It was 6, now 7. I'll look at the top of the article again, but I thought it was obvious that Jimbo's question was highly disputed starting about the 2nd paragraph. Thanks for your understanding. Smallbones_{( smalltalk)} 00:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The reason I prefer email is that I don't have to go thru writing and editing the article on-Wiki while two or three people watch over my shoulder. Have you ever tried doing that and answering their questions at the same time? well...Brad is a former arbitrator... GeneralNotability ( talk) 00:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it is an opinion piece and you can share your opinion how you like. But I would think that Jimbo resigning his administrator privileges in disgrace would be headline news that would warrant some objective reporting. – bradv 01:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, @ Serial Number 54129:. I currently need to file a police report and then attempt to board a plane with no photo ID, but will address this issue as soon as it becomes possible for me to do so. jp× g 07:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Favourite quote, from Beeblebrox ( here):

The supposed smoking gun was a screenshot from someone calling themselves "Wikipedia editor" that supposedly proved that this person as Bradv. The proof they submitted of their identity as a Wikipedia admin was very obviously either photoshopped or faked up on a private wiki. Anyone even mildly familiar with Wikipedia terminology and processes could see it was a fake. It also showed BradV signing a post with a full last name, which he never did that I know of. I have no idea if the name I saw even is Brad's real last name. The point is it was laughably fake, to the point where I suspect Jimbo probably had not even actually seen it with his own eyes before he went after Brad, and ego got in his way after that.

The scammers clearly knew they had a whale here, someone who had money, wanted an article about themselves, and had absolutely no understanding whatsoever of what Wikipedia is and how it works. They just wanted to buy their way in, and only became upset when they did not get the results they were paying for. So, they reached out to who they assumed was the guy who actually runs everything, Jimbo, to talk one rich overlord to another.

In short: the person Jimbo has been referring to as "the victim" is a rich person who wanted to buy their portion of Wikipedia. They were led to believe they were buying off admins and arbs to make sure their article was bulletproof. I have zero sympathy for them. If 20K was really that big of a deal to them, they would not have spent it on something they clearly knew nothing about. The victim here is Wikipedia, and BradV in particular.

Chances of seeing criticism like that featured at the under-a-cloud Signpost, though... probably not great. It seem that to its editor/s, the emperor must remain clothed! Good to see you, Brad. You've been missed. El_C 06:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we're getting there.See News and notes Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)}_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 02:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I just took a look and the coverage in the Signpost is much improved. To the whole team: thank you for taking the time to listen. – bradv 17:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You blocked Special:Contributions/Justin Kurt E. Toboso, but now there’s Special:Contributions/Justin Toboso. 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 13:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you. – bradv 13:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And thank you! 100.36.106.199 ( talk) 13:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but ugh I was hoping for a different outcome. Thanks for stepping up! Valereee ( talk) 16:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bradv,

Thank you for the close of this RfC, but I believe it was mistaken on several grounds and I hope you will be willing to review it.

First, you say many of them cannot be improved. This is the reason for the proposal and the significant support for it; it seems odd to use the reason for the proposal as justification against implementing it. I also don't believe this was presented as an argument against draftifying in the debate, which makes it an inappropriate argument to raise in the close.

Second, you say there is no clear route for them to get out of incubation and back into mainspace. That isn't accurate; the proposal provided a clearly defined process with Any draft (whether in draftspace, userspace, or WikiProject space) can be returned to mainspace when it contains sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG.

Third, you say Furthermore, the policy states that incubation must not be used as a "backdoor to deletion", an argument that was not adequately refuted by the supporters of this particular proposal. This argument was refuted by supporters on three grounds. First, editors who wish to preserve the articles for longer are empowered to move it to user space or project space. Second, editors who wish to preserve the content in mainspace are empowered to do so by moving the article back and converting it into a redirect. Third, the proposal includes the auto-delete period being extended from 6 months to 5 years.

Fourth, I believe WP:NOTBURO applies; WP:ATD-I says that moving articles to draft space should generally be done only for newly created articles (typically as part of new page review) or as the result of a deletion discussion. The principle here appears to be that draftification shouldn't happen without discussion; while the letter says that the discussion has to be an AfD it would appear to be an an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies to disregard an RfC with far more participation than almost all AfD's because the discussion is in a different format. This is also supported by the discussion you linked; many of the !votes for option one, as well as the close (Instead of unilaterally draftifying an unsuitable-for-mainspace article that is not newly created, editors should instead nominate the article for deletion, e.g. via WP:PROD or WP:AFD.), appear to have been focused on preventing unilateral draftification, rather than on limiting draftification to AfD.

I also believe that it may have been better for you to allow another editor to close the discussion on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED; you have been involved in a previous dispute on the topic of whether draft space should be used in this manner with you taking the position Draftifying articles as an alternative to deletion should only be done for brand-new articles where the author is still available to work on it, or in cases where someone asks to put it in draftspace so they can fix it up to avoid deletion. This argument could have been applied verbatim to this proposal as an argument against, and as such I think you should be participating, not closing. BilledMammal ( talk) 16:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Unlike BilledMammal, I think that was a good closure. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

To address your first three points: Per ATD-I, draftspace is for article improvement. It is inappropriate for articles that cannot be improved to be moved to draftspace. CONLEVEL establishes that a local discussion cannot override this policy.

On your fourth point: This is not an AfD, as the proposal was to draftify the articles rather than to delete them. If the proposal was to delete the articles, and it had reached a consensus to the level expected at AfD, I would agree.

And on your final point, the statement that you quote is pretty much a direct quote from the policy. That you agree that this is "an argument against" is telling, as it illustrates the main flaw in this proposal. – bradv 16:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for articles that cannot be improved to be moved to draftspace. That isn't entirely true. It is only inappropriate for articles that we are know cannot be improved to be moved to draftspace - we move articles to draft space without a guarantee that they can be improved all the time. In this case, while we expect that most of these articles cannot be improved, we don't know which ones can and cannot be; as such, we are in compliance with the policy. Further, as I pointed out, this appears to be a novel argument and as the closer you shouldn't be making novel arguments in your close as it prevents editors who disagree with the argument from presenting a rebuttal to it.

If the proposal was to delete the articles, and it had reached a consensus to the level expected at AfD, I would agree. I'm not certain what the point is here - are you saying that if the proposal had been to delete the articles, but instead the discussion had gone the way it had with minimal support for deletion but considerable support for draftification, there would have been a consensus for draftification?

And on your final point, the statement that you quote is pretty much a direct quote from the policy. It is a more restrictive version of policy; you argue it should only be used when an editor is committed to working on it, while policy permits it for any new article and for any article where there is a consensus for draftification at AfD. This is also why making that !vote in the discussion wouldn't have been decisive; editors could have rebutted it by pointing to this second permitted use and WP:NOTBURO. Further, I don't believe that changes whether you were involved; you were a party to a prior dispute on this topic and as far as I can tell none of the exceptions to WP:INVOLVED apply here. BilledMammal ( talk) 16:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not a novel argument. ATD-I clearly states Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement, with the aim of eventually moving them back to the main namespace. Draftspace is for new articles that can be improved, it is not a purgatory for articles yet to be judged. That is not my opinion; it's what the policy says, and what was brought up by numerous participants in the discussion.

Re paragraph 2, I'm saying if this was a deletion discussion, and it reached a consensus to delete, it would be appropriate to delete the articles even if it wasn't held at the conventional venue.

And on your final point, I based my close on the consensus of the discussion, drawing in the concerns raised by the various participants there and evaluating them against our existing policies and conventions. I believe this is clear from my statement, but if you still disagree you are welcome to take to AN for review. – bradv 17:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a novel argument in that no editor raised the argument that some of the articles couldn't be improved as a reason against draftifying; as closer you should only be considering arguments raised. That is also your interpretation of policy; other valid interpretations exist. For example, that draft space is also for old articles where there is a consensus at AfD for them to be draftified (Older articles should not be draftified without an AfD consensus, with 90 days a rule of thumb)

Re paragraph 2, I'm saying if this was a deletion discussion, and it reached a consensus to delete, it would be appropriate to delete the articles even if it wasn't held at the conventional venue. And if it reached a consensus to draftify? BilledMammal ( talk) 17:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: "CONLEVEL establishes that a local discussion cannot override this policy." - This was not a local discussion, it was a widely-advertised RFC. Also the line in your close, "While the majority of commenters are in favour of draftifying these ~1000 articles, there are sufficient concerns raised about the process that have not been adequately addressed." - Who decides whether it was "adequately" addressed? Because it seems to me that a majority of the participants addressed the objections and felt they had been addressed adequately. So if most editors are in favor of the proposal, on what basis are you discounting or down-weighing their !votes? Because CONLEVEL does not provide a basis for that. Levivich ( talk) 16:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I could have used the word "narrower" rather than "local". This was not a policy discussion; it was a discussion on how to apply the policy against a set of articles, and is therefore narrower in scope than a policy discussion. That is the whole point of CONLEVEL.

The closer decides whether issues raised are adequately refuted, just as in any other RfC, AfD, RM, etc. Per above, if you feel that I do so inadequately or improperly, feel free to take it to AN for review. – bradv 17:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

As an univnovled editor who didn't want to read this whole discussion, I appreciate anyone who is willing to take the time to read it and do so knowing it could result in further work (namely this discussion). What I am left wondering after reading the close, but not the whole dicsussion is what the POV of the majority was. I learned at length the reasons that policy supported the minority so I get that. But I am left to wonder, given the size of the discussion, if there wasn't some wisdom of the crowd that means there is a policy compliant consensus reached by that majority even if it's not drafticication. Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have raised a discussion about this close at AN that can be seen here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_of_RFC_at_Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC_on_draftifying_a_subset_of_mass-created_Olympian_microstubs. FOARP ( talk) 09:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Question on RfC wording

Considering that discussions held at the village pump and attended by around 100 editors can alter what is permitted, if the RfC question had been Should the following biographical microstubs, which were mass-created by Lugnuts and cover non-medalling Olympians who competed between 1896 and 1912, be moved out of article space and should this RfC be permitted to draftify these articles? (additions in bold) would that have altered the close? BilledMammal ( talk) 23:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in answering hypothetical questions that are going to be misrepresented at AN. When the dust settles maybe you and I can have a chat, but for now I'd like to people at AN to read the discussion/close for themselves and make an informed opinion. – bradv 23:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are concerned about me misrepresenting your response, I am happy to ask the question at AN and you can respond to it directly? BilledMammal ( talk) 23:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for vacating this decision. For the record I don’t think this is going to be an easy close for anyone (not least technically not an easy one to execute if it is passed!) and, though I disagreed with your close as an assessment of the consensus and P&Gs, I did not buy the argument that you were WP:Involved. FOARP ( talk) 03:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah any close of that discussion was guaranteed a review at AN. Sorry your reentry's been less than smooth. Blessings, Folly Mox ( talk) 04:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I was expecting a review at AN, but I was expecting the conversation to be focused solely on the merits of the close. I was not prepared for whatever this was. Good luck to whoever tackles this next. – bradv 05:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Not that I want you to stick to something when you don't want to, but I worry that it creates a problematic standard/precedent for WP:INVOLVED. I typed this up yesterday but never posted it. Might as well put it here:

I'm not so sure I find it persuasive that someone participating in discussions which shape policy disqualifies them from implementing said policy. We don't say "you participated in writing WP:FRINGE, so you have no business closing discussions about fringe topics". Likewise it doesn't seem like having the opinion that we should go by current policy and explore other options even if it makes it harder to get rid of a bunch of articles should disqualify them from closing a discussion when someone proposes a similar solution to a different problem. We don't say that if you find IAR arguments in one AfD unpersuasive, then you cannot close another AfD where people suggest IAR. I would expect a claim of WP:INVOLVED to be accompanied by diffs showing involvement in this dispute, not merely that Bradv didn't think a mass draftification contrary to the deletion policy wasn't a good solution to an entirely different scenario (one in which, by the way, Brad proposed other ways to handle the articles en masse). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The idea that someone who supports a PAG change, which is then adopted, is INVOLVED or even just involved when it comes to applying that PAG is absurd. I can't help but wonder if some of the people claiming INVOLVED/involved are really thinking that Bradv misapplied the policy and then are latching on to INVOLVED for why this happened and not stating that (or perhaps not realizing it themselves). I thought I had subtly made clear in my message here that I didn't think Bradv was involved/INVOLVED here but I see I didn't, which I'm sorry about. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @ Rhododendrites and @ Barkeep49. I agree that this argument is absurd and has the potential to set a dangerous precedent. Between this issue, the misrepresentation of comments I made above, and the red herring about a "75% threshold" (as if that's how consensus is determined), the conversation at AN had gone completely off the rails. To be clear, I did not revert my close because I agree with the critics or find merit in their arguments, but because it was getting personal and I don't need this drama. Someone else can try to sort out this mess. – bradv 16:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wanted to stop by and also mention I don't think you met the threshold for being involved. Unfortunately that threshold is malleable, and is highly dependent on his many people disagree with your action. I had concerns about the close rationale, but not sufficient to actually support an overturn. In fact, I recently closed a discussion with significant policy ramifications as no consensus with a similar ratio.

This situation also demonstrates a problem that can arise with closing statements, where something can be misunderstood, or something is mentioned in the statement and it gets latched onto when it is merely part of the reasoning. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm generally of the opinion that less is more when it comes to closing statements. In this case I was trying to be helpful as I knew it was an emotionally-charged discussion, and it backfired spectacularly. Lesson learned I guess. – bradv 16:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm inclined by nature to write longer closes than you and something you taught me is the power of "less is more" closes. I think in cases where you're saying that the strength of argument outweighs the strength of numbers a minimal close also doesn't work. So there's certainly a balance to be had. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bradv, it is good to see that you have returned (even if the circumstances of your return were not so pleasant). I was wondering if you might have time to change the "ds alerts" button to read "ct alerts" over at superlinks after the recent rename? Thank you for creating that script; it is extremely useful! Best, House Blaster ^talk 17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi HouseBlaster, I'm planning an overhaul of that tool soon as I have a few changes in mind. I will add this item to the list. Thank you. – bradv 21:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Awesome! Excited to see what the new-and-improved version looks like—thank you so much! :) House Blaster ^talk 22:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your decline of a CSD, I think that page should be deleted under WP:U2. Although it is on a renamed user space, it was created after the user was renamed and isn't a redirect to their current talk page so my understanding is it should be deleted (and has been deleted once after I had tagged it a few days ago before the same user recreated, I'm not sure why they're doing that.) It's very likely I'm missing something so that's partly why I'm asking for clarification. Also do you think it makes sense to reach out to the user that had created to to see if they need some assistance? Thanks! Skynxnex ( talk) 18:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Userpages of renamed users are not eligible for deletion, per WP:U2. I've replaced it with a blank {{ retired}} template, as the user has vanished and is no longer editing. – bradv 21:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The page I had tagged was the user talk page that was created after renaming by an other user who left a "you've got mail" notice and was unrelated to any renaming (as far as I knkw), which is why I thought it was appropriate to delete. And didn't fall under any exceptions for U2. If there are other good reasons to keep it blanked/retires, that's fine. Thanks. Skynxnex ( talk) 13:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes Spicy Ale jrb Dbachmann DGG ( deceased) Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes Jimbo Wales Oversighter changes Jimbo Wales

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

Hi Bradv,
70.183.208.109 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is most likely block evasion of 2600:8807:a00:23::/64 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), 8.48.252.99 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 209.124.214.173 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thank you for blocking 70.183.208.109 as they have been harassing me on my Talk. Notice 70.183.208.109 and 209.124.214.173 posted almost the same thing on my Talk. — YoungForever ^(talk) 23:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@ YoungForever, do you want me to semi-protect your talk page for a bit? – bradv 23:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if you can. Thank you. — YoungForever ^(talk) 23:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. Also, congrats on Editor of the Week! – bradv 00:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — YoungForever ^(talk) 00:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

user:Maram ahmari (who you blocked for 24 hours for deleting sourced content at Mecca) is doing it again. Given the lack of response, a full WP:NOTHERE block seems appropriate to me. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 20:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know. – bradv 20:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Bradv,

This page shows up on lists of nonexistent editors that should be deleted (see this list) and I'm not the only editor who runs these types of queries. And I see that you have put full protection on the page. Can it still be deleted or a redirect put on it so that it doesn't appear on lists of pages that should be deleted? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Liz, can that list be fixed so pages belonging to renamed users don't show up? These aren't eligible for U2, and in this case the page exists for privacy reasons. – bradv 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The user name should be re-registered probably. I'm also puzzled by a user page existing for privacy reasons, it's nearly always the opposite case where we delete user pages. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with bradv - U2 doesn't apply to pages left over following renames, so they should be excluded from any queries run to find them. Primefac ( talk) 12:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The page should be deleted and probably salted instead if its re-creation is an issue. The retired notice should go on the user page of the renamed user page if they are indeed now retired. I join MZMcBride in not understanding the justification for a page existing being privacy reasons. WP:U2 also only states that it applies to redirects due to renames, not general pages. I'm the author of the query and am not aware of any other non-redirect user pages of renamed users that are retained, hence why it is written the way it is. Uhai ( talk) 03:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Primefac, the page is not left over following a rename. The user was vanished on 24 April without leaving a redirect. The user talk page was recreated twice by LGSBB ( talk · contribs) leaving YGM messages on 28 & 30 April for a user who no longer existed at that point. LGSBB is an SPA who has only edited to contact Hobomok and the renamer who vanished them, J ansari. On each occasion LGSBB created the user talk page it was for a non-existent user and eminently U2-able, as is Bradv's creation of the userpage.

MZMcBride, re-registered by whom, and for what purpose?

Well that's a vanishing that's been 100% undermined. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Cabayi ( talk) 11:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough; my comment was more on how the page was discovered. Primefac ( talk) 18:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@ MZMcBride and Uhai: When a user is renamed and their user pages moved without leaving a redirect, visiting the old user page will show the log entries for not only the page move, but also the rename log as well, making it easy to connect the dots (and thus defeat the point of the vanishing). Creating the page—even if it's a blank page—hides these log entries from immediate view, which is akin to a courtesy blanking. From my recollection, few users who have requested vanishing have asked for their old usernames to be re-registered (in the past, this was necessary to prevent old names from being reclaimed by bad actors, but today the Antispoof extension blocks the re-registration of old usernames from renamed users, so only ACC and admins can recreate them), and most have been fine with the status quo of their user pages being moved without leaving a redirect, thus leaving links to their vanishing at the old user page. Not everyone is, though. Perhaps the process of vanishing can be more formalized (currently, it's done at the discretion of the renamer processing the request, along with any additional requests from the vanishing user). — k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 12:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Your point about redrafting the vanishing guidance is on the mark. It's scary the number of vanishing users who create a user page with {{ retired}} just to add {{ db-u1}} 30 seconds later followed by a request for vanishing. Unfortunately the instructions need to cover the range of users from a genteel retirement to fleeing Wikipedia in fear, often by users who don't want to engage in thinking through the implications of their choices, and apparently unable to tell the difference between a user page that exists and one that does not.

Also, it's a global process. It'll need a wider consultation. Cabayi ( talk) 12:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue here is the rename log is immediately to whomever clicks on a link to the vanished account's non-existent user page. We used to oversight the logs when people vanished for privacy reasons, but for some reason we no longer do that so this is the only way we can even pretend to hide that information. Creating a dummy page is obviously not a great solution, but it is better than doing nothing. – bradv 12:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, but I'm the naive fool that tried to reclose a certain RfC you may be trying hard to forget. I tried to acknowledge my debt to you, and realized very well my close might be reopened again, but now in that reopen request a number of people are saying we should go back to your close despite your withdrawing it. I just wrote a long paragraph about how we should take your close withdrawal at face value, and, that, honestly, the people who think they're supporting you by saying we shouldn't are not actually doing you any favors; but maybe I'm wrong, and I thought I should give you the chance to say something about it.

If your answer is something like: "I'd rather eat worms than participate one way or the other, and if no one ever mentioned it to me again, I could die a happy man," then that is a perfectly reasonable response, and if that is the case, then say that, or even just revert my edit here on your talk page, and I promise I won't bother you about it again. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Both closes were perfectly reasonable at the time they were read. This discussion has become about winning and not about improving the encyclopedia, based on my reading of the AN threads. There are trouts yet to be awarded. BusterD ( talk) 15:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@ GRuban, it seems to me that you are giving more weight to the withdrawal of my close than the closing statement itself. Neither of them should have been considered in your close, as your statement should only consider and make reference to arguments made in the RfC. If you had done that I believe you would have reached a conclusion more similar to mine.

Just to be clear, I was not persuaded by any of the arguments made against my close, and did not withdraw it because I believed they had merit. The comments saying I was bullied into backing down are correct. – bradv 01:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI since you issued a previous block of this user, who is now doing more of the same. diff1, diff2 Funcrunch ( talk) 02:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've blocked them until they can convince us that they're interested in building an encyclopedia. – bradv 13:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Re your question... Semi-protecting the page General relativity springs to mind . If they persist, I'll file a request. Cheers! - DVdm ( talk) 09:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@ DVdm, that sounds reasonable. Thanks. – bradv 12:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This account isn't just a spam account, but a LTA known as House of Yahweh and Piermark ( long-term abuse case page). Just thought I'd let you know. Also, most of their accounts have such long names, which is usually an easy way of telling which accounts are HoY socks. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contribs)} 23:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I figured it was them (I think you specified that in your AIV report too). But LTA isn't a block reason in Twinkle, which is the tool I had open at the time. ;) – bradv 00:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Heh, I wouldn't know about admin tools in Twinkle, as I'm not an administrator. But that makes sense. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contribs)} 00:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You know where to go to fix that, right? – bradv 00:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but not yet. LilianaUwU ^{( talk / contribs)} 00:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes Ingenuity Ddstretch Prodego Resolute

CheckUser changes Courcelles

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

That's twice today you've popped in with some much appreciated backup. Thanks for that. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. (I had to check my contribs to figure out what you're talking about – I'm not stalking you, I swear.) – bradv 00:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

You recently deleted the draft page for Bruno Gouery based on copyright infringement. The text was virtually identical to the Bruno Gouery page at wikiake and wikitia. But this happened because those sites copied the text that I had written on wikipedia not the other way around. The article was resubmitted to move from the draft space to the main space in January or early February. By checking the wayback machine you can see that the wikiake page appeared in March 2023 while the text for the wikipedia page predates that. The wikitia page was created on 9 February 2023. At the bottom the wikitia article states "This article "Bruno Gouery" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical. Articles taken from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be accessed on Wikipedia's Draft Namespace. "

Please restore the page and move it into the main space. Thank you. Uwhoff ( talk) 01:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I had no idea. https://wikiake.com/bruno-gouery/ appears to be a blatant copyright violation then, as the tagline at the bottom says "© Copyright 2021 Wikiake. All right reserved." The other website, Wikitia, did not come up in my search.

I have restored the draft and accepted it to mainspace. Thanks for writing the article. – bradv 03:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

More interesting: Wikitia is on the blacklist so I couldn't save this comment with a link. But Wikiake, who appears to be violating copyrights, is not. I will look into this further. – bradv 03:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Uwhoff ( talk) 20:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Brad! I wanted to follow up with you regarding a point you made at User talk:Theanonymoustypist, and as this doesn't relate exactly to that discussion, I figured we could spare that user the emails.

Leaving aside the specific draft we were discussing, you mentioned that the list article is full of redlinks. Because this is English Wikipedia, there is a WP:Systemic bias against topics not in the Anglosphere; thus, an article of a German state legislator is inherently less likely to exist than, say, an article on an American state legislator, even though they are both equally notable. Regards, Curbon7 ( talk) 04:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with that. But you can also see why that wasn't obvious when I was reviewing the article, as it didn't look like we have many biographies of similar people. Plus the sourcing on the draft is in such bad state it really isn't obvious whether that claim to notability is actually verifiable. – bradv 05:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been in the process of moving. Yup, I understand why it is confusing, as I know WP:NPOL is one of our most deceivingly tricky notability guidelines (the explanatory essay WP:NSUBPOL can help), and the specific draft was certainly not doing itself any favors in terms of clarity. Curbon7 ( talk) 19:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the guidelines. What I mean is a subject's notability should be obvious from the article. Our guidelines say "presumed notable", but the article still needs sources. – bradv 21:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth do you barge in and just cut and AFD short?? Why not just respect Wikipedia procedure and let it's run its course. I had not even been running for an hour! T v x1 00:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Because it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ending with your preferred outcome. Give it a month and try again if you still feel it should be deleted. – bradv 00:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I thank that’s a very quick judgement to make after just an hour of the process. You should at the very least have given people in different tile zones around the world the chance to get aware of it. T v x1 06:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me put this another way then. In the short time that the AfD was open, you made 25 comments. Some of them were needlessly hostile (e.g. 1, 2, 3), some made absurd arguments implying that we already have articles on all notable subjects (e.g. 4, 5), and others were just plain unconstructive (e.g. 6). Not a single one of these comments convinced anyone of your point of view, and rather than backing down you were BLUDGEONing the conversation. This was going to end badly for you. I suggest you leave this behind and go work on something else. – bradv 14:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm just a talk page watcher, didn't participate in the AFD, had never seen the article before now ... but, man! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockton Rush had 11 Keep opinions. Eleven. Most marked as strong. 0 Delete opinions other than the nominator. Zero. I've never seen a stronger WP:SNOW case. Meanwhile the nominator literally responded to every single opinion, often multiple times and at length, and with such calm and well thought out statements as "No" and "No, you are". Bradv knew what he was doing closing this out early. -- GRuban ( talk)

/info/en/?search=Oswaal_Books

I created a Wikipedia page for an Indian Educational material publisher by the name of Oswaal Books which publish content for all schools from standard 1-12 and preparation material for major exams. Oswaal Books was established in 1984 as one of the oldest education provider in India. I even did citation of all major links supporting the submitted information.

May I know where I lacked as it was marked for deletion? Creator1998 ( talk) 02:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the article as blatant advertising. This is an encyclopedia, not a way for you to advertise your company. See WP:PROMO and WP:SPAMMER for further advice. – bradv 02:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not my company, I'm not asked to do it. When I was born this company was 14 years old already, lol. I have just started contributing and I was making random searches for things I can create a page for when I searched for this books provider and it wasn't on Wikipedia being 38 years old. May I know a reference for how to draft content for it then. Creator1998 ( talk) 02:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If you just found this by a random search, why do you have a COI notice on your userpage? – bradv 02:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

What's this COI notice now? Creator1998 ( talk) 02:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The notice on your user page, which says "This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Oswaal Books." – bradv 02:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

How does it come? Because I created this page?

When I started creating it, it asked me something to select any 1 option out of following three, 1. Im creating for self, 2. Im creating for someone known or related, 3. Im not connected or related.

Not exact these wordings but something similar. I selected third. Creator1998 ( talk) 03:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The second option is what generates the instructions to add that template to your userpage, so maybe you misclicked or the script malfunctioned. Either way, the deleted page contained mostly content copied from https://oswaalbooks.com/pages/about-us, complete with a few marketing phrases such as "Welcome to Oswaal Books" and "At Oswaal Books, our core purpose is to make learning simple." These are the kinds of phrases you'll commonly find on a company website, but very rarely in an encyclopedia. – bradv 03:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Bradv,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Hello User:Bradv, I'm hoping to obtain clarification from you as to why you placed a notability tag on No Mafia as the article as drafted contains four product reviews that meet the criteria specified in WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. Three are from The West Australian, and one is in the Sydney Morning Herald. Two of those reviews are from the very well-established food reviewer Rob Broadfield. Jack4576 ( talk) 02:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated it for AfD. Let's see what other people think. – bradv 02:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would have been better for us to discuss the article's issues first. No matter. Jack4576 ( talk) 02:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That's why I added the notability tag. But you promptly reverted it which I took to mean you didn't want to have such a discussion. – bradv 02:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@ Jack4576 do you want to talk about Rob Broadfield? You created this article based on a single source which in turn appears to derive nearly all of its relevant content from an Instagram post. Do you feel that this satisfies our basic criteria for biographies? – bradv 02:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes sure, its a Stub, he is the most prominent food critic in Western Australia, and so satisfies WP:AUTHOR.

The 'single source' does not derive its relevant content, that being, his status of being "Perth’s most eminent food critic" from the Instagram post, obviously.

This is a reliable source that Rob Broadfield is Perth's most eminent food critic, hence he satisfies WP:AUTHOR

1. 1 - "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"

Hence, Rob Broadfield is "likely to be notable". I haven't yet done a fuller search for sources that would satisfy WP:BASIC, but I presume it is likely that I would be able to do so if I undertook that effort. I intend to do that sometime soon.

Does that make sense to you?

Jack4576 ( talk) 03:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It would make more sense to me to gather a few sources before beginning work on an article, even if it's just to make sure you're not wasting anyone's time. That is the advice we give new editors at Your First Article. – bradv 03:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me that articles involving subjects that are 'likely to be notable' are ones that are suitable for creation as a 'stub' class.

If an article needs additional sources or content, the appropriate tags can be added; and other editors can fill in the gaps.

I don't see how any of this involves a waste of anyone's time. As can be seen, and as would be expected, there are plenty of sources available on Rob Broadfield. I've just added one from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I'm sure I'll be able to find more.

Would you like to join me in the search? Jack4576 ( talk) 03:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you would interpret that as me not wanting to have a discussion; it was in accordance with BOLD REVERT DISCUSS. I immediately posted on this talk page after reverting that notability tag, for the purpose of discussion.

If you wanted a discussion, why didn't you initiate one on the article's talk page or here? I did so almost immediately. If you had done so, I would have been able to point toward additional sources.

I just don't see the relationship between my removal of a tag, and your conclusion that I didn't want a discussion. My understanding is that tags in and of themselves aren't designed for the purpose of discussion? They're designed so that editors can quickly identify categories of pages that are suffering from a particular issue. I merely disagreed with you as to whether that issue applied. Jack4576 ( talk) 02:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Tagging articles also helps to draw attention to the issue from other editors who may be patrolling the relevant maintenance categories. It is explicitly a call for further attention to the issue. I'm not going to edit war with you when you remove a tag, but I am going to assume that you aren't too interested in my opinion – I believe most experienced editors would conclude the same. – bradv 03:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I simply disagreed that the article was appropriate for inclusion within that relevant maintenance category.

If you wanted to have a discussion about whether or not it belonged in that category; you were free to initiate that discussion. Nothing about BRD involves edit warring. Indeed, nothing I've said above is an invitation for you to edit war with me.

Why would you assume I'm not interested in your opinion? That doesn't seem to be in accordance with AGF. I would have thought the better approach would be to assume that any editor would be willing to discuss after a reversion. Jack4576 ( talk) 03:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the BRD cycle applies in the same way to article improvement tags as it does to regular editing, but if it does, the third step is happening – at AfD, where it belongs. It is generally understood that the creator of an article should not remove the tags applied to it until the issue is resolved, and that if it does happen input from other editors is required, typically at a broader venue. – bradv 03:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the BRD cycle contemplates the appropriate place for 'discuss' being AFD. It would appear to me, (relatively uncontroversially and clearly I would have thought), that the appropriate place for discussion for any issue relating to an article is on the article's talk page.

It would also appear to be relatively clear that the BRD cycle also applies to improvement tags. It applies to everything on this website, and there is nothing available to suggest that improvement tags would be an exception to this. Have you come across something that I have not?

"It is generally understood that the creator of an article should not remove the tags applied to it until the issue is resolved"

In my view, the issue had been resolved; as in, the issue did not exist, it was a non-issue. Hence I viewed it as appropriate to remove the tag, and revert your edit. My reason for coming to that view was as stated in my comment initiating this discussion.

If you disagreed with that reversion, you could have engaged in discussion. My view is that such an approach would be more in accordance with BRD. Jack4576 ( talk) 03:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Given your status as an Administrator, I find your opinion as stated above is a concerning one.

It seems obvious to me that the appropriate forum to discuss a newly created article, and its attendant issues, is an article's talk page. If such a discussion fails, or is intractable, further appropriate actions can be taken.

However, to take those actions immediately; prior to any discussion having taken place, is an inappropriate action in my view. It wastes the time of many users that now have to participate in that discussion; when instead we could have discussed the issue regarding sources first and perhaps reached a consensus together.

This interaction has frankly been a little disappointing and its not one that I would have expected from a site Administrator. Jack4576 ( talk) 04:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Just as a note, there is no mandatory numerical list of places where discussion needs to take place. From my perspective (having never seen the article or this discussion until a few minutes ago) bradv said (by placin the tag) "this might not be notable". You said (by removing the tag) "I think this is notable". A discussion could happen on the talk page, or here, but if bradv is not convinced of the notability of the subject (i.e. you do not give a persuasive argument) then it will still be sent to AFD. It is not "rude" or "inappropriate" to skip the talk page discussion and go straight to AFD.

As a minor point, nothing here has bradv done in an administrative capacity, i.e. "as an administrator", so any argument about inappropriate use of said "status" is incorrect.

As a further, slightly more relevant point - the deletion discussion is currently unanimous in favour of deletion, so... bradv does not appear to have been wrong. Primefac ( talk) 10:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi User:Primefac, I think it is generally in the interests of saving time, to engage in BRD prior to more radical actions. Most forums on Wikipedia have a particular purpose, and so are not suitable as a primary place for article issues to be discussed.

At no point did I say that Bradv acted inappropriately in his capacity as an administrator. What I meant was, his pattern of editing outside of BRD isn't, IMO, in accordance with core BRD principles; and as such it is a disappointing example of behaviour from someone who incidentally happens to be an admin.

Regarding the deletion discussion, I don't think anything can be drawn from the votes which are in this case casting votes drawing upon reasons that are clearly in contradiction with the community consensus on how WP:AUD is understood to apply. In sum I don't take your point I'm afraid. Jack4576 ( talk) 11:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally User:Primefac, to talk of where a discussion is required to take place is not to talk of where a discussion ought to take place; which was my point. Jack4576 ( talk) 11:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ng12345678 says in his talk page that he is Ng1234567, i think you should change his block message to sockpuppetry. Notrealname1234 ( talk) 14:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Meh, blocked is blocked. Maybe Courcelles would like to have a look though. – bradv 14:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed, of course, but I don’t see any new accounts. Courcelles ( talk) 14:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. – bradv 18:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)